The study notes that in 1950, the US ranked fifth among leading industrialised nations for female life expectancy at birth, but only 46th in 2008.

It finds that US healthcare spending increased at nearly twice the rate of that in other wealthy nations between 1970 and 2002, with the increased spending corresponding with worsening survival rates relative to the other countries studied.

“In most cases, the relative US performance deteriorated from decade to decade,” wrote authors Peter Muennig and Sherry Glied of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

They note the countries to which the US is compared – Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK – all provide universal healthcare coverage.

Factors such as differing obesity, smoking, road accident and murder rates were taken into account in the study.

‘Meaningful reform’

The US spends far more on healthcare than any other country as a percentage of gross domestic product, the study finds.

“We speculate that the nature of our health care system – specifically, its reliance on unregulated fee-for-service and specialty care – may explain both the increased spending and the relative deterioration in survival that we observed,” the authors wrote.

“If so, meaningful reform may not only save money over the long term, it may also save lives.”

The authors said those aspects of the US health system contributed to unnecessary medical procedures, poor communication between doctors and higher rates of medical errors.

5

Peter Singer is an interesting person. His goal as a philosopher is, as I see it, to come up with guidelines that allow for acting ethically while remaining consistent. He artfully exposes the inconsistencies in much of what we in the west consider our ethical codes. The book itself, Rethinking Life and Death, is a quick read, and one I recommend.

Singer does have a perspective that has been challenged often; one example is that he has been accused of promoting the killing of the disabled. Those charges show that those who raise them have not read his work, but it is true that much of what he proposes may not be worth the trade off. For me, he raises the issue of whether it is more important to be consistent or to do what is right. He does not see the two as conflicting; I am not so sure.

At the end of his book he discusses the ‘old’ rules and proposes instead a new rule for each.

1. Old – Treat all human life as of equal worth

New – Recognize that the worth of human life varies

I think this one is possibly most likely to draw the ire of many who have not read his arguments. It mainly serves to address the concerns surrounding withdrawal of medical care from those who never will be conscious.

2. Old – Never intentionally take innocent human life

New – Take responsibility for the consequencs of your decisions

3. Old – Never take your own life, and always try to prevent others taking theirs

New – Respect a person’s desire to live or die

This one, for me, was the most obviously correct. I know that suicide of a young, troubled person is something I want to prevent, but I do not agree that those who are terminally ill or in severe and unending pain should be required to stay alive if that is not their choice.

4. Old – Be fruitful and multiply

New – Bring children into the world only if they are wanted

I clearly agree with this suggestion as well. The idea of having kids to fulfill some religious purpose turns my stomach a bit (Duggars, I’m looking at you).

5. Old – Treat all human life as always more precious than any nonhuman life

New – Do not descriminate on the basis of species

This one also is likely to earn an audible guffaw from most people. As someone who has been a vegetarian a few times in my life, I have struggled with this for years. I’m still not sure how to act when it comes to using animals to receive pleasure in the form of cute boots or a tasty burger. I have requested his Animal Liberation book from the library to learn more.

If any of this strikes you as interesting, I suggest picking up a copy of the book at the library.

4

Barbara Ehrenreich (of Nickel and Dimed fame) has written a good, if not always extremely interesting, book critically examining positive thinking and the demand that all people embrace it. I just finished it and wanted to recommend it to anyone looking for a fairly quick vacation read that is more than just a trashy novel.

Her overall thesis is not that positive thinking is BAD, but that the idea of positive thinking has been used to ignore potential dangers and look down upon those who are in pain or trouble. Essentially, those who espouse ideas like “The Secret” are not just suggesting that if you dream it, you can achieve it, but the opposite; namely, if something bad has happened, it is your fault for just not thinking positively enough.

She also spends time looking at the recent economic downturn and how positive thinking life coaches are brought into corporations after mass firings to ‘motivate’ the remaining employees to work even harder. She also discusses the desire for people to encourage those going through difficult times to “buck up” even though being upset may be a very valid emotional response.

To that end, in my opinion the first chapter is clearly the best one, as it focuses on the author’s experience with breast cancer and the culture surrounding the demand that cancer patients keep a positive attitude, lest they show signs of weakness or defeat. Perhaps because she was diagnosed with cancer and is able to articulate her feelings (as opposed to interviewing others or reading the work of others on the topic), this chapter is strongest.

4

Vatican official criticises Nobel win for IVF pioneer

The first test tube baby celebrated her 30th birthday with Prof Edwards in 2008

A Vatican official has said the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Medicine to British IVF pioneer Robert Edwards is “completely out of order”.

Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said the award ignored the ethical questions raised by the fertility treatment.

He said IVF had led to the destruction of large numbers of human embryos.

Nearly four million babies have been born using IVF fertility treatment since 1978.

Mr Carrasco, the Vatican’s spokesman on bio-ethics, said in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) had been “a new and important chapter in the field of human reproduction”.

But he said the Nobel prize committee’s choice of Prof Edwards had been “completely out of order” as without his treatment, there would be no market for human eggs “and there would not be a large number of freezers filled with embryos in the world”, he told Italy’s Ansa news agency.

“In the best of cases they are transferred into a uterus but most probably they will end up abandoned or dead, which is a problem for which the new Nobel prize winner is responsible.”

In his statement, Mr Carrasco stressed that he was speaking in a personal capacity.

The Nobel medicine prize committee in Oslo said Prof Edwards’ work had brought “joy to infertile people all over the world”.

“His achievements have made it possible to treat infertility, a medical condition afflicting a large proportion of humanity, including more than 10% of all couples worldwide,” it said.

Prof Edwards efforts in the 1950s, 60s and 70s led to the birth of the world’s first “test tube baby”, Louise Brown, in July 1978.

Ms Brown said the award was “fantastic news”.

“Me and mum are so glad that one of the pioneers of IVF has been given the recognition he deserves,” she said.

“We hold Bob in great affection and are delighted to send our personal congratulations to him and his family at this time.”

4

If I ever jump into the world of online dating, I will be checking the box “athiest.” Not even the “spiritual but not religious” box describes me, because I think that generally refers to those who think there is some sort of god out there but they do not like organized religion. I neither think religion is a net positive in the world nor do I believe that there is a god who man has yet to accurately describe.

One of the most interesting books I’ve read lately is Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. You can read professional reviews of it online; my purpose here is not to necessarily break it down, or get into every point he raises. Instead it’s more of a jumping off point for discussing my view of reality, a view that has been evolving and solidifying over the the last twenty years of my life. While this post certainly will not begin to cover what I believe are all of the logical reasons for not believing in god (nor will I get into, at this time, why throwing the word “faith” out there does not provide any sort of support for god), I wanted to spend some time discussing what has led me to not believe in any sort of diety. I think it is important to get down onto paper (or LCD screens, if you prefer) these thoughts, because I have found over the past few years that when it comes to public policy – which is where my real interests in life lie – religion, and the type of thinking that it often promotes, is the root of so many problems in society.

My parents are not particularly religious – or at least are not the type of religious parents who would force their beliefs on their children. However, when I was in late middle school / early high school I became involved in a youth group at the local church, which in retrospect makes me quite uncomfortable. I do not believe that adolescents are stupid, but I also think that the idea of religion is a bit too complex for a thirteen-year-old. Honestly, I think it is too complex for most adults, especially when you think about the mental gymnastics one needs to rationalize and reconcile what is written in religious texts and promoted by religious leaders.

Additionally, the ability of a teen to fully grasp the nuances and ask critical questions with judgemental peers around is underdeveloped, to say the least. Who is going to question the idea of the holy trinity with the cute girl from biology staring at him? I spent two years involved in ‘the church;’ however, thanks to some careful parenting I realized that some of the church’s stances – such as the idea that evolution is a hoax – did not have much relation to reality.

I still considered myself a Christian, although I clearly did not understand exactly the implications and obligations such a statement conveyed. I removed myself from the youth group, but during my third year in college, I attended a Bible study group. I figured, sure, why not, and that became a turning point for me. Even when I was attending that unhealthy youth group, I still believed that while there was a god, and probably a heaven, Christians certainly weren’t the only ones going there. That struck my fifteen-year-old mind as obvious. Clearly if there was a god, humans couldn’t know all about him or her anyway, so the arrogance involved in most religions was certainly on my radar.

At the second Bible study meeting I asked a question about other religions and whether the believers in those went to heaven too. The leader of the group sort of nodded, and instead of answering the question, said it was a good one, and then ‘reminded me’ that Satan likes to plant seeds of doubt in our minds.

Say WHAT? First off, the idea of a devil has always sturck me as absurd. Grown adults thinking there’s this horned man who gets all up in our heads to get us to do bad things seems more like the rationalizations of the child who cannot begin to understand the world, or who would rather not be held accountable for her actions. “It wasn’t me, it was SATAN!” Disturbing. Second, the implication from her comment was that the religious beliefs of billions of people existed because of the devil, and thus all of those folks were going to hell. That was enough for me; I was done.

At least, I was done with Bible study. I was not yet ready to be done with religion. Monotheism is the common western religious category, but I started to wonder about other ideas, so I read about a variety of them, from paganism to buddhism.

(As an aside, I still am not clear why believing in multiple gods, or gods that manifest themselves through nature, is any more bizarre than believing in a god who exists in three different forms, kills his own son [who is also him, and so is really committing suicide], and then demands that some of his followers eat his body and drink his blood every week. If that isn’t entirely odd, it is at least stranger than people chanting in the woods and exploring the possible healing properties of different plants.)

None of the religions really made any logical sense. There seemed to be so much effort spent explaining away certain parts of different ‘holy texts’ to make them fit what we know now. Evolution exists? Okay then – Genesis is not really talking about six 24-hour days; the days are metaphorical. But everything else is totally true!

In the past couple of years, I’ve come to the realization that I do not believe in any sort of god. I am an atheist, although I find it so strange that I need to declare my non-belief in someone for whom there is no proof of existence. I do not believe in unicorns, but I do not see why it should be assumed that I do, or why I should have to make it clear that I do not.

I recognize that the unicorn / god analogy is putting it indelicately, and that I need to be careful to not offend my religious friends, lest they think I see them as less intelligent than me, or that I condescend to them when discussing these issues. That is not my goal, nor do I think my religious friends are stupid. People disagree about many things, from how to reduce poverty to who should be given civil rights.

That is why I find philosophy so fascinating. I have had many interesting conversations with religious folks about what is the right thing to do in a particular situation; however I do admit that I am not open to reasoning that starts with “in the Bible” or “in the Koran” if the textual quotes that follow are meant to serve as evidence supporting a particular position. My own exploration of the world, the inconsistencies in the tenets of religions, what they practice, and how members present themselves, coupled with much of what I have been studying in the past year, have helped me to understand and support my beliefs.

In answer to the question posed in the title, I am still not sure that I am in agreement with Hitchens’ central thesis, because to accept it would be to accept that religion has poisoned all of my friends who choose to believe in some version of god. I do not think that is the case – some of the coolest, most interesting, kind people I know are religious. However, I do think so much of what Hitchens says – the points he makes, the evidence he provides, the inconsistencies he reveals – is valid, and should be examined by anyone who has made the choice to believe in god.

1

Have you heard about this? It is making me extremely sad. From what is being reported so far, it appears that freshman Tyler Clementi was recorded remotely by his residence hall roommate, being intimate with another man. It now appears that Mr. Clementi jumped from the GW bridge, killing himself.

There are two aspects to this story that I’m mulling over right now. The first is the ridiculousness of the two alleged defendants. I understand that 18-year-olds may be adults legally but are still figuring some things out. However, while I do not think it is likely that they acted with the idea that Mr. Clementi would end up killing himself, one would have to have never lived in the world – let alone attended high school – to recognize that what they were doing would be highly humiliating and emotionally hurtful. Whether it ended up being made public or just circulated among friends, having photographic evidence of someone doing something they would not normally do in public only serves to embarrass them. Emotional harm can be the only outcome.

The second aspect is whether they would have considered doing this if Mr. Clementi had been intimate with someone of the opposite sex. Was he taped solely because the two people who taped him were thinking it would be funny? Or were they thinking it would be funny because they could humiliate him even more because people are still bigoted towards gay men and lesbians?

Both possibilities are disturbing to me. The fact that young adults still think that humiliating people they do not know or do not like is fun saddens me. Perhaps kids have always been this way, but now the actions can be magnified and sent out across the planet instantly. Once a video is sent to someone, there is no way to get it back. Even if the person who filmed it later realizes that he screwed up, he can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. It may be unfortunate, but it is the reality, and I think there needs to be more of an effort to explain what that actually means, to try to get these kids (and adults, too, in some cases) to think more long term. I post some silly things on Facebook, but everything is set to private, and nothing I post there would get me in trouble (mostly because I don’t do anything that troublesome). Do young adults not realize that their moments of being obnoxious could have lifelong consequences not just for others, but for them, too?

A sex tape of anyone at any age that was made without his consent is going to be disturbing. I certainly don’t want my intimate moments viewed by anyone else. But if it’s thought worse because it involved two people of the same sex, that’s another example of what is not right in the world. Life can be hard for people who are gay because of people who decide to make life hard for them. Sexual orientation is nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about, and the fact that there is a chance that the people who chose to be bigots are what lead this young man to kill himself should be distressing to everyone.

22

The past few days here have been loads of fun. On Saturday I went to the Huskies game with my roommate, my friend and her mom. Oh man, they stunk up the place, but it was fun to be at a live game. Plus, good weather! Then we headed out to get some fantastic poutine. Mmmm. Poutine.

Sunday was international talk like a pirate day, so of course we celebrated by drinking at a pirate-themed bar. As you do. I also made some progress on my latest project. In an attempt to stay sane while unemployed I’m archiving all my digital photos. As in, printing them and putting them into labeled albums. All my printed photos from 2003 through now were printed and when delivered weighed in at 28 pounds. That’s a lot of sorting and labeling, It’s a bit of work, but I’m enjoying being reminded about the trips I’ve taken and the good times I’ve had.

Yesterday my roommate took me shooting! I’ve never shot a gun before, but I’d been interested in trying it. He was a great teacher, and we ended up shooting three different guns. I found I was not horrible at it. Not great, but I managed to hit the middle circle on the target much of the time. The only off moment was when one of the spent cartridges ended up burning me a bit in a place it really shouldn’t have managed to get to.

Today we managed to eat our way through the Puyallup Fair. Seriously. Between the three of us we consumed more food than any people should. We also watched “Mutton Bustin'”, which may be the most bizarre sanctioned child abuse. Kids – 6 years old and under – are put on sheep and lay on them, holding onto the wool rodeo-style, with the goal of holding on for at least six seconds while the sheep runs around a muddy ring. The kids are wearing helmets and padding on their chests, but it is, in a word, odd. But it seemed an appropriate way to celebrate the last day of one of the best summers I can remember.

Can you be too tall?

Recently it was reported that President Barack Obama’s daughter, Malia, 12, has reached the height of 175 cm (5ft 9in).

It has highlighted once more the social implications of being tall for your age.

In the past, some parents have wished for their tall girls to be shorter, and the other way round for boys – and requested medical intervention.

Families are advised to see a GP if worried about their children’s growth, as it could have an underlying reason.

But when there is no diagnosis of an underlying medical problem, it is now rare in the UK for medical treatment to be given to limit or boost children’s height for purely social reasons.

Growth hormone is not currently offered by the NHS, but it is available privately. In the US this treatment can cost up to $50,000 (£31,975) per year if a child needs high doses.

Until the 1990s, however, it was common for hormone treatment to be offered to girls to limit their adult height. It was felt that girls who were “too tall” would be unhappy and would never get married.

Peter Hindmarsh and Tim Cole of the Institute of Child Health at University College, London, say they still get a few families who consult them hoping to stop their daughter from growing too tall.

Tall girls

The treatment they can offer involves giving girls synthetic oestrogen in fairly low doses, which leads to the onset of puberty, and limits growth.

“Start Quote

All the girls are about my height or a bit taller, and they are not bothered if they play with me as the romantic lead”

End QuoteTom WyllieAged 17

Nowadays it is rare for families to take up this treatment, said Prof Hindmarsh.

“I recently bumped into one of the last girls we treated, about seven or eight years ago, on a railway station,” he explained.

“She is now aged 25 or so and is about 6ft 2in and was wearing huge platforms, so she was effectively about the same height that she would have ended up without treatment.”

He said this young woman seemed very comfortable with her height.

Experts say families are right to consult a GP if their child appears to be at the upper limits of growth, because there are syndromes that cause other medical problems, but which have as their main symptom tall stature in childhood.

Marfan Syndrome, which can cause problems with the eyes, heart, and major blood vessels, is usually noticed because a child grows very tall.

Treatment

However, treating girls with oestrogen to limit their adult height was common from the 1950s through the 1990s in many countries – especially Australia, the US, the Netherlands and Scandinavia.

In about 97% of UK couples, the husband is taller than the wife

Some researchers think this happens for evolutionary reasons, and may lead to taller men having more children

In some countries the percentage of wife-taller marriages is nearer 8 or 9%. If people chose their spouses randomly, then many couples would be like this.

In these cultures – such as in the Gambia, and among the Hadza hunter-gatherer people in Tanzania – men and women do not seem to choose partners by height.

Source: Biology Letters, 2009

Psychologists have looked at whether this made girls any happier. An Australian study compared girls who had thought about being treated, but decided not to, with those who had gone ahead with treatment.

They followed up the girls when they were between 23 and 55 years of age, and found that women who had decided to get treatment were no less likely to have suffered mental health problems.

In the US, too, a study looked at women in the general population and in a survey of nearly 60,000 adults found that tall women were generally very happy with their height – 77% of women who were 183cm (6ft) were happy with their height.

One classic reason for families wanting their girls to reach a shorter adult height has been that parents were worried their daughter might never marry.

But the US study also found that it made little difference how tall women were. Even the tallest women were very likely to be in a relationship.

Short boys

At the other end of the spectrum, far more families seek help for a short son than a daughter. As with very tall children, some children are short because they have a clinical syndrome, and some are just short – they have no hormone deficiency or other problems.

If children have the genetic disorder Turner Syndrome, a growth hormone deficiency or some other syndromes, NHS guidelines allow for growth hormone treatment to be given to increase height.

Tam Fry, chairman of parent support charity, the Child Growth Foundation, said: “It is a possibility that families may gloss over a girl who is growing slowly – if you’ve got boys and girls in the family, you still need to monitor their height progress to be reassured they are growing properly.”

Tom Wyllie is 17, and lives in Northumberland. When he was a child, his parents noticed he was not growing as they expected.

He was diagnosed as needing growth hormone supplements for medical reasons and he still has a daily injection.

He has reached his final height of 157 cm (5ft 2in). But he has not let it stop him aim for his goal – to be a professional musical theatre actor. He has already been in Oliver!, Annie, Godspell, Chicago and has auditioned for Britain’s Got Talent.

“I’ve been performing pretty much all my life, it’s been my lifelong ambition, since the age of six,” said Tom.

Tom Wyllie says that the girls on his drama course are not concerned that he is short.

“All the girls are about my height or a bit taller, and they are not bothered if they play with me as the romantic lead.”

His says his main problem is that he looks a little younger than he is, and often has to show ID at the cinema or when renting a 15-rated DVD.

The Florida pastor who had planned to burn copies of the Quran on Saturday has called it off.

The Rev. Terry Jones of the Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center made the announcement Thursday.

Earlier Thursday, President Obama said Jones’ plan, which had triggered worldwide controversy, would be a “recruitment bonanza for al Qaeda.”

“You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan” as a result of the proposal by Jones, Obama said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “This could increase the recruitment of individuals who’d be willing to blow themselves up in American cities, or European cities.”

Jones had previously said he would proceed with the plan Saturday — the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — despite increased pressure to abandon the proposal and warnings that going ahead could endanger U.S. troops and Americans worldwide.

There were several developments prior to Jones’ cancellation announcement:

— Local governments said they were going to bill Jones for the extra cost of security for Saturday’s event.

— Interpol on Thursday issued a global alert to its 188 member countries, warning of a “strong likelihood” of violent attacks if the Quran burning proceeds.

— An armed Christian organization, which withdrew its support for the Quran-burning event last month, said the administration “needs to stay out of this” and pledged to defend the Dove Center’s right to hold the event, despite its disagreement.

— The FBI warned local law enforcement that the plan, along with other recent controversies involving the American Muslim community, could lead to hate crimes and could encourage extremist rhetoric, although a federal law enforcement official said there was no credible information that attacks were planned.

The FBI visited Jones at the Dove Center on Thursday, according to Jeffrey Westcott, special agent in charge of the Jacksonville, Florida, bureau. The FBI also visited him a few weeks ago, he said, but would not say what was discussed.

Discussions were taking place within the Obama administration about the possibility of intervening, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Thursday. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the possibility of calling Jones is under consideration, and that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was participating in the discussions.

Earlier this week, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, warned that the plan “could cause significant problems” for American troops overseas.

Jones has rejected the pleas, saying his message targets radical Islamists. “The general needs to point his finger to radical Islam and tell them to shut up, tell them to stop, tell them that we will not bow our knees to them,” Jones said on CNN’s “AC360.” “We are burning the book. We are not killing someone. We are not murdering people.”

Meanwhile, Obama told ABC, “As commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We’re already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat … this is a destructive act that he’s engaging in.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group, announced an initiative called “Learn, Don’t Burn” on Thursday and will distribute Qurans to replace the burned copies.

Awad said the group is concerned that the plan may lead to hate crimes against Muslims. Cross burnings by the Ku Klux Klan were an indication of hate crimes to follow against African-Americans, he said, and Nazis started with burning books and “ended up burning people.”

CAIR has been working with attorneys, and no basis has been found to stop the burnings under the law, he said, but he added that if the plan is going to incite violence, the government should step in.

“I can assure you that on September 11, you will not see a bonfire of Qurans being burned at the Dove Church,” Imam Mahdi Bray, head of the Muslim-American Society, told reporters.

He said he has just returned from Gainesville, where city officials told him Jones will not receive a burn permit and any sort of incendiary material will violate the city code. A fire truck will be nearby to douse any flames, he said.

Gainesville Mayor Craig Lowe said Jones’ requests for burn permits have been denied, and city officials hope that he will comply. If he breaks the law, action can be taken against Jones, with the response based on whatever the infraction might be, he said. Lowe has declared Saturday “Interfaith Solidarity Day.”

City Communications Manager Bob Woods said the city will tally up costs related to the event and present Jones with the bill.

Alachua County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Art Forgey said “we do plan to compile and send a bill to Mr. Jones.”

“I don’t know that we have the teeth to enforce it, though,” Forgey added. Instead, the bill may just end up being a statement to Jones about how much the event cost local citizens, the spokesman said.

Before Jones announced the cancellation, the Gainesville Students for a Democratic Society said Thursday it would bus in students from as far away as Chicago, Illinois, and would have about 600 on hand Saturday to protest at a nearby park, then march to the church to picket the event.

Meanwhile, two websites associated with Jones and his church were down Thursday.

Rackspace Hosting took down the two sites because the church “violated the hate speech provision of our acceptable use policy,” spokesman Dan Goodgame said.

The company investigated a complaint in the past couple days and made the determination after reviewing both sites, said Goodgame, adding that Rackspace was under no pressure to act.

“This is not a constitutional issue. This is a contract issue,” he said.

Rackspace gave Jones until midnight Wednesday to migrate content and find another host. Goodgame said he did not know how long Rackspace had hosted the websites, but he said it did not handle design or content.

“We have about 100,000 customers,” Goodgame said. “We don’t even know what all the sites are.”

Jones and Dove World had agreed to terms on the Rackspace Cloud service, Goodgame said. The policy dictates the suspension or termination of service for offensive content, including material that is “excessively violent, incites violence, threatens violence or contains harassing content or hate speech.”

“We would have taken the same position if it was hate speech against Christians or other groups,” he added.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is one of the few public officials who defended Jones’ right to go ahead with the burning, even as he condemned the idea as “distasteful.”

“The First Amendment protects everybody, and you can’t say that we are going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement,” Bloomberg said, citing the section of the Constitution that promises freedom of speech.

The U.S. State Department issued a global travel alert because of the potential for anti-American demonstrations if the Quran burning were to have been carried out.